The Lemon Fool

I hold Chesnara and I don't care whether it's O/T or not.

Its business was adversely affected by this https://www.businessfast.co.uk/insurers ... ra-warns/e court ruling, which potentially limits its growth prospects.
I also hold Phoenix PHNX, in the same line of business.

What is it about the HYPP board, that otherwise sensible and helpful peeps can't refrain from niggling about it.

V8

88V8 wrote:I hold Chesnara and I don't care whether it's O/T or not.

Its business was adversely affected by this https://www.businessfast.co.uk/insurers ... ra-warns/e court ruling, which potentially limits its growth prospects.
I also hold Phoenix PHNX, in the same line of business

V8

I hold both as well but what has your reference got to do with Chesnara?

Dod

Dod101 wrote:

88V8 wrote:
I hold Chesnara and I don't care whether it's O/T or not.

Its business was adversely affected by this https://www.businessfast.co.uk/insurers ... ra-warns/e court ruling, which potentially limits its growth prospects.
I also hold Phoenix PHNX, in the same line of business

I hold both as well but what has your reference got to do with Chesnara?

The original URL link was broken Dod, so it was being redirected to a completely different story.

Here's a working link to the intended Chesnara article -

https://www.businessfast.co.uk/insurers-will-shy-from-deals-involving-courts-chesnara-warns/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Dod101 wrote:I hold both as well but what has your reference got to do with Chesnara?

Something is wrong with the link, but I believe it's the story involving Prudential and Rothesay where the Prudential was attempting to offload its annuity business before the M&G demerger.

Google for "insurers will shy from business involving courts" to get FT coverage. I think there's past discussion on TLF. Old news.

Thanks to both, In the event it is old news anyway. I think it was the fact that Rothesay is a relatively unknown that had a lot to do with it rather than simply the fact that it had to be a Court approved deal. Chesnara's comments were good politics.

These transfers are substituting one lot of security for another on what are long term commitments and it is surely right that great care is taken to make sure that the new party is at least as secure as the old. I do not think it is really an issue for Chesnara to worry about.

In the particular case, I assume that is why M & G still has some life insurance business.

Dod

Thankyou for fixing the link..

Dod101 wrote:....In the event it is old news anyway. I think it was the fact that Rothesay is a relatively unknown that had a lot to do with it

Old news yes, but the nub was that Rothesay was deemed too small. Chesnara is relatively small and I believe the SP has since suffered from read-across.

V8

88V8 wrote:Thankyou for fixing the link..

Dod101 wrote:....In the event it is old news anyway. I think it was the fact that Rothesay is a relatively unknown that had a lot to do with it

Old news yes, but the nub was that Rothesay was deemed too small. Chesnara is relatively small and I believe the SP has since suffered from read-across.

V8

In which case Chesnara ought to put itself up for sale maybe?

Dod

'The judge said Rothesay was a “relatively new entrant without an established reputation in the business” and although it had solvency ratios at least equal to Prudential’s, “it does not have the same capital management policies or the backing of a large group with the resources and a reputational imperative to support a company that carries its business name if the need were to arise over the lifetime of the annuity policies'

I am not being argumentative but the above is an extract from one comment I have found and it is not size particularly that seems to have been the problem, but the fact that Rothesay was relatively recently established, is an unknown and does not have the reputation of say L & G, Prudential , Phoenix Holdings or even of Chesnara itself.

Clearly if a Court is asked to rule they are going to be cautious since there is a lot at stake for a long time to come. Everyone knows that any insurer can fail, remember Equity Life? I think the Pru was being a bit optimistic in choosing Rothesay in the first place.

Dod

TUK020 wrote:

Wizard wrote:

tjh290633 wrote:Perhaps you had better read the guidelines again, then. Has Chesnara ever been in the FTSE350?

TJH

All that means is that it may be in some portfolios already. However, this is a thread about ideas and in that context we are taliing about a purchase. The Guidelines say:
"When bought, be among the constituents of the FTSE 350 index.
When initially bought, have yields greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 index."
The use of "initially" in the rule about yield suggests an initial purchase must comply but subsequent top-ups can happen at a lower yield. But there is no "initially" in the rule about being a constituent of the FTSE350, so that must cover an initial purchase and top-ups.
So as an idea for a purchase (initial or top-up) it is surely off topic for HYP-P, but could be discussed here.
Maybe you should try and think about what they actually mean and the context of the discussion.

Guys,
Who gives a damn? (this is take 2, the politer version).
Salvor posted a super piece on ideas for investment for high yield share strategies, on the correct board.
If you want to discuss HYP-P guidelines, why don't you take it to the Biscuit Bar? I don't think they are too keen on discussing them on HYP-P.
All this has done is drive another useful and promising thread into the mud.
We are now well beyond the flagellation of an ex-equine. This is into mechanically recovered meat for horseburger.
Very frustrating. Please excuse the rant.
tuk020

Most of us would agree with you - except that it not "guys" but one particular guy who always is the cause of such outbreaks.

Arb,

Dod101 wrote:'The judge said .....
I am not being argumentative but the above is an extract from one comment I have found and it is not size particularly that seems to have been the problem, but the fact that Rothesay was relatively recently established, is an unknown and does not have the reputation of say L & G, Prudential , Phoenix Holdings or even of Chesnara itself.

Yes, those were the reported comments. I think the takeaway though was that size also matters. At any rate, after the judgement, CSN's share price fell quite precipitately from 355 to 275, perhaps with the thought that the judgement would be inhibitive to their business development.
Happy to hold but haven't topped up.

V8

TUK020 wrote:

Wizard wrote:

tjh290633 wrote:Perhaps you had better read the guidelines again, then. Has Chesnara ever been in the FTSE350?

TJH

All that means is that it may be in some portfolios already. However, this is a thread about ideas and in that context we are taliing about a purchase. The Guidelines say:
"When bought, be among the constituents of the FTSE 350 index.
When initially bought, have yields greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 index."
The use of "initially" in the rule about yield suggests an initial purchase must comply but subsequent top-ups can happen at a lower yield. But there is no "initially" in the rule about being a constituent of the FTSE350, so that must cover an initial purchase and top-ups.
So as an idea for a purchase (initial or top-up) it is surely off topic for HYP-P, but could be discussed here.
Maybe you should try and think about what they actually mean and the context of the discussion.

Guys,
Who gives a damn? (this is take 2, the politer version).
Salvor posted a super piece on ideas for investment for high yield share strategies, on the correct board.
If you want to discuss HYP-P guidelines, why don't you take it to the Biscuit Bar? I don't think they are too keen on discussing them on HYP-P.
All this has done is drive another useful and promising thread into the mud.
We are now well beyond the flagellation of an ex-equine. This is into mechanically recovered meat for horseburger.
Very frustrating. Please excuse the rant.
tuk020

Totally agree, as HYP criticsm is not permitted on HYP where the adherents of same are now intended to dwell, why on earth should discussion of it now start to overpower HYSSG, crowding out more interesting matters, it is merely tedious dancing on the head of a pin

Surely HYSSG ought to be akin to the knife fight in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid- No Rules, so what is or is not permitted becomes a non question and itself need not be debated as on HYSSG anything HY should go (except discussions about other rules based investment approaches)

Hi everyone
i m a newbie
any reason why nobody proposes MNG as a potential target for a hypish portfolio?

FooledFrog wrote:Hi everyone
i m a newbie
any reason why nobody proposes MNG as a potential target for a hypish portfolio?

I think it has been mentioned recently - perhaps over on HYP Practical.

Arb.

viewtopic.php?p=337545#p337545

Here, by Pyad

FooledFrog wrote:Hi everyone
i m a newbie
any reason why nobody proposes MNG as a potential target for a hypish portfolio?

It's new, having been spun out of Prudential.

As mentioned above, it has been discussed on the HYP-P board.

TJH

thanks for your answers

Just to note that the Rothesay decision was overturned on appeal.

As Dod observed above, Rothesay's solvency was perfectly adequate, and the Appeal has found that the independent expert and PRA were right to look at the solvency metrics at a specific date...
https://financialinstitutionsnews.com/2 ... -decision/

To whatever extent the original Court decision may have created negative read-across to Chesnara, this should now be moderated.

V8

88V8 wrote:Just to note that the Rothesay decision was overturned on appeal.

As Dod observed above, Rothesay's solvency was perfectly adequate, and the Appeal has found that the independent expert and PRA were right to look at the solvency metrics at a specific date...
https://financialinstitutionsnews.com/2 ... -decision/

To whatever extent the original Court decision may have created negative read-across to Chesnara, this should now be moderated.

V8

How interesting. Thank you.

Dod